It’s a “BOOBIE HATCH”!!

Ha ha HA

Hee hee.

Let me also confess that I believe that neither creationism nor Intelligent Design are scientific theories that ought to be taught in either public or Christian schools. The natural sciences are limited to the study of natural phenomena and cannot, by definition, employ a non-natural cause as a scientifically understandable mechanism. Much like the “god of chance who is secretly worshipped” (Pierre Paul Grasse’s term, not mine) the God of the Jews, Christians, or Muslims should not be invoked as a scientific explanation. While it is entirely rational to believe that God created the entire universe and believe that creation preceded evolution such beliefs lie in the realm of science in the broad sense ( e.g. the science of theology – see Merriam-Webster), but not the natural sciences in the narrower sense.

Third confession: I am scientifically an agnostic. I do not know if God created Natural Laws and initial conditions sufficient to include the origin of life and molecules-to-man evolution as part of the finely-tuned universe we observe. It is possible that natural processes are insufficient to account for the origin of phyla, for example, or that natural chemical cross-reactions would have prevented a naturalistic origin of life. Let’s leave it up to the chemicals to tell us how they actually react with each other. Scientists ought to be agnostic and open to the possibility that nature doesn’t follow our naturalistic philosophies.

To Darwin’s credit, he gave us an excellent theory of microevolution. The only problem with it is that it does not come close to explaining the pervasive patterns of natural history (the disparity of phyla preceding the diversity of species).

What scientists need to add to Darwin’s theory is a theory of mega-evolution to explain the origin of phyla (assuming that macroevolution occurs at the species/genus/family level we need a different term for major evolutionary change at higher taxonomic levels covering greater morphological distances).

Scientists also need to develop a Theory of Conservation to explain stasis at all taxonomic levels.

Bottom line? CharlesDarwin.org is not anti-evolutionary, it does not promote either creationism or Intelligent Design, but it does question the common belief in Unintelligent Design and the assumption that nature can be completely explained in terms of natural processes.

Just like Big Bang theory, evolution points back to a moment of the creation of everything and the nagging question, “Who put the material in Materialism?”

It doesn’t seem like a fundie organization, though. Odd.

At first, I thought the above comment was a hoax. The real Kevin Wirth never admitted that “intelligent design” is creationism. The email address he listed with the comment is the same one he used on earlier comments, which suggests this is genuine. Of course, the real Kevin Wirth blasts his comments onto every web site that even hints that evolution is real, so thousands of people have his email address. Make your own decision.

Little Ronnie Britton discovered our little secret web site, oh my! oH No!! thAt ‘Lil sTinkEr is jUst wAY tOO curIouS. nOW i AM so sCared AboUt wHAt wIll hAPpEn Now ThAt hE knoWs wE arE up tO no GooD agaIn.

hELp HeLP fRiendLy creaTionIsts… pleAsE hElp heLp !!!

The beauty of science is the ability to defer to reason.

I would love to pontificate but this approach tends not to get read.

There is nothing about evolution which violates the law. Evolution does not result in a higher organization to life or higher complexity. Organisms change to adapt to new environments no higher energy state is a prerequisite. Life is the portion of the argument which violates the second law, yet it exists.

Life utilizes energy to maintain itself. ie plants use sun. Therefore, if it were totally required evolution would probably do the same. (get energy from somewhere). The remainder of life remains organized by extracting the previously stored solar energy (eating plants).

The crux of the matter is just this. As the universe inexorably heads towards its lowest possible energy state, life increases the rate of entropic decay by eating. Sure, life itself is an infinitesimally small reversal of law 2 with the end result being a faster rate of entropic decay. (unless, for example,someone is willing to claim that the farts are MORE organized than the cow).

So, life is essentially a catalyst causing increased entropy in the universe. If I must keep talking (and I must) then evolution can be thought of as life getting better at channeling energy with which to promote the universe falling apart.

If a violation of the second law be required then look no farther than God. An all powerful magical invisible undetectable source of all things. No batteries required!!

There are boobies on the internet??!!

There sure are! Look at this pair!